Short Reads

Belgian Court of Cassation annuls decision prohibiting pharmacists from using Google Adwords

Belgian Court of Cassation annuls decision prohibiting pharmacists fr

Belgian Court of Cassation annuls decision prohibiting pharmacists from using Google Adwords

01.08.2018 BE law

On 7 June 2018, the Belgian Court of Cassation, ruled that a decision of the Pharmacists Association Appeals Council (Appeals Council) prohibiting pharmacists from using Google Adwords to offer over-the-counter (OTC) products violated Belgian competition law because the Appeals Council did not sufficiently justify why such a prohibition was necessary for health reasons. The Appeals Council must now issue a new decision.

The Pharmacists Association (Orde van Apothekers - Ordre des Pharmaciens) is a professional association of pharmacists. Membership is mandatory partly to ensure that ethical and moral standards are maintained in the profession.

In the case at hand, the Appeals Council held that using Google Adwords for OTC products (i) lured customers into buying pharmacy products, (ii) resulted in customers not being able to access better care within their immediate geographical location and (iii) amounted to a "commercial exaggeration"  contrary to the principles of honour and dignity, which lie at the core of the profession. The Appeals Council also held that the responsible distribution of medicine requires personal contact with pharmacists, which is displaced by the use of Google Adwords.

The Court of Cassation held that the decision of the Appeals Council violated competition law. It confirmed the applicability of competition rules to pharmacists, noting that despite their social role, pharmacists are involved in exchanging goods or services and are therefore 'undertakings' subject to competition law. In addition, the Court concluded that the Pharmacists Association is also subjected to competition law, even though it pursues a statutory and not an economic objective.

The  Court considered that the Appeals council decision was based on the material interests of the pharmacists and general notions on the way the supply of medicine should be organised economically. Through its decision the Appeals council restricted competition without providing specific reasoning why the complainant would – through the use of Google Adwords for OTC products – endanger the public interest in terms of public health or the ethical standards of the profession.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of August 2018. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. European Court of Justice dismissed Orange Polska’s appeal in abuse of dominance case
  2. General Court underlines importance of Commission's duty to state reasons
  3. General Court dismisses appeals by investor against power cable cartel fine
  4. Google receives a second record fine of EUR 34 billion for imposing restrictions on Android device makers
  5. European Commission issues a new Best Practices Code for State aid control
  6. District Court in the Netherlands rules on limitation periods in CRT case
  7. Court of Appeal in the Netherlands decides to appoint independent economic experts in TenneT v ABB

Team

Related news

01.08.2019 NL law
General court dismisses all five appeals in the optical disk drives cartel

Short Reads - The General Court recently upheld a Commission decision finding that suppliers of optical disk drives colluded in bids for sales to Dell and HP by engaging in a network of parallel bilateral contacts over a multi-year period. The General Court rejected applicants' arguments regarding the Commission's fining methodology, including that the Commission ought to have provided reasons for not departing from the general methodology set out in its 2006 Guidelines.

Read more

14.08.2019 BE law
Verklaring van openbaar nut is geen "project" in de zin van de MER-regelgeving

Articles - In een recent arrest bevestigt de Raad van State dat "verklaringen van openbaar nut", bedoeld in artikel 10 van de wet van 12 april 1965 betreffende het vervoer van gasachtige produkten en andere door middel van leidingen niet onder het begrip "project" uit de project-MER-regelgeving valt. Of hetzelfde geldt voor elk type gelijkaardige administratieve toelating, is daarmee evenwel nog niet gezegd. Niettemin geeft de Raad met zijn arrest een belangrijk signaal dat niet elke mogelijke toelating onder de project-MER-regelgeving valt.

Read more

01.08.2019 NL law
Brand owners beware: Commission tough on cross-border sales restrictions

Short Reads - The European Commission recently imposed a EUR 6.2 million fine on Hello Kitty owner Sanrio for preventing its licensees from selling licensed merchandising products across the entire EEA. Sanrio is the second licensor (after Nike) to be fined for imposing territorial sales restrictions on its non-exclusive licensees for licensed merchandise. A third investigation into allegedly similar practices by Universal Studios is ongoing. The case confirms the Commission's determination to tackle these practices, regardless of type or form.

Read more

08.08.2019 BE law
Regulating online platforms: piece of the puzzle

Articles - The new Regulation no. 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services, applicable as of 12 July 2020, is another piece of the puzzle regulating online platforms, this time focussing on the supply side of the platforms.

Read more

01.08.2019 NL law
Call of duty: Commission must state reasons when straying from its guidelines

Short Reads - The European Commission has lost a second battle concerning its EUR 15 million fine imposed upon interdealer broker ICAP, this time before the European Court of Justice. The Court upheld the previous judgment of the General Court on the basis of the Commission's failure to state reasons concerning its fining methodology of cartel facilitator ICAP. This may lead to more reasoned Commission decisions in the future - deterrence of cartel behaviour does not justify keeping the methodology for setting the fines as a 'black box'.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring